2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 6-9-2010 

# I s s a N our v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1030

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " I s s a N our v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1173. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1173NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1030

___________ I S S A YO USS OUF NOUR, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 98- 929- 654) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c G . L eeds

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 9, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM I s s a Y ous s ouf N our , a. k. a. N ourI s s a Y ous s ouf, appar ent l ya nat i ve and c i t i zen ofA l l the ev i den ce i n the r ecord (i ncludi ng i den t i tydo cum ents ) s ug gest s that N ou r i s a 1 nat i ve and c i t i zen of

C had. I n conce di ng r emovabi l i ty , N ournece s s ar i l yagr eed w i th one bas i s forthe cha r ge – thathe i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C had. H ow ever , the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) s t at ed thatN our“i s al l egedl ya nat i ve and c i t i zen of C had, ” and the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s w r ot e thatN our“cl ai m s t o be a na t i ve and c i t i zen of C had. ” 2 C had, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober2005 as a noni m m i gr ants tudentt o att end a

1 l anguage s chool i n N ew Y or k. H e di d notatt end the s chool , and the G overnm entchar ged hi m w i th r emovabi l i tyforfai l i ng t o compl yw i th the condi t i ons of hi s s t atus . N our conce ded the cha r ge and appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng, and pr ot ect i on underthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). T he I J m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and deni ed N our ’ s cl ai m s for as y l um and w i thhol di ng on thatbas i s . T he I J deni ed the C A T cl ai m on the gr ounds that N our ’ s “cl ai m s [w e] r e notcr edi bl e” a nd thatN ourdi d not“pr es entanyaddi t i onal e v id e n c e to in d ica te th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to C h a d .” T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss e d N o u r’s su b se q u e n t ap p e a l, ru lin g th a t th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyf in d in g w a s n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s a n d w a s s u p p o rta b le underthe R E A L I D A cts t andar ds . T he B I A furtherhel d thatN ourdi d notpr es ent“any c re d ib le e v id e n c e , ind e p e n d e n t o f th e [ IJ’ s] a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g , tha t h e w o u ld m or e l i kel ythan notbe t or tur ed” i n C had. A l s o, the B I A r ej ect ed N our ’ s cl ai m s of due p ro c e s s v io la tio n s a n d h e ld th a t th e IJ d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g a c o n tin u a n c e . N our , thr ough couns el , s ubm i t s a pet i t i on forr evi ew . H e ar gues that , forvar i ous r e a s o n s , th e a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i tyf i n d i n g i s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . HeW e re co g n ize tha t th e p arti es p rese n t com p eti n g arg u m en ts r eg ard ing the s tand ard 2 thatan I J m us tfol l ow i n m aki ng cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons . W e not e thatbefor e the enac t m entof the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on coul d be b a s e d o n in c o n s is te n c ie s o n ly if th e in c o n s is te n c ie s w e n t to th e h e a rto f th e c la im . S e e C h u k w u v . A tto rn e yG e n . o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). H ow ever , a new R E A L I D A cts t andar d, w hi ch pr ovi des that“cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons m aybe made ‘ w i thoutr egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes to th e h e a rt o f

th e a p p lica n t’s c laim ,’” a p p lies to N o u r’s c a se b e c a u se h e f iled h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef

fro m rem o v al af

ter M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . S ee id. ( q u o ti n g the R E A L ID A ct); see also K ait a v . A tt o rne yG en . o f th e U n it ed S tat es, 52 2 F . 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A lth o u g h w e h a v e n o t y e t sp o k e n o n w h a t th e c h a n g e in th e law m e a n s, w e n o te th a t w e w o u ld c o m e to th e sa m e c o n c lu sio n a b o u t th e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n in th is c a s e u n d e rth e p r e - RE AL I D Ac ts t a n d a r d a n d a n ys tr i c t e rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w th a tf

o l l o ws f ro m th e R E A L ID A c t. S e e , e .g ., L in v . M u k a s e y , 5 3 4 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 co n tend s tha t th e a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination w as m ad e in v iolati o n o f th e R E A L ID A ct an d is othe rw ise i n co n sist en t w ith ap p li ca b le l aw . N o u r also states tha t th e IJ e rro n e o u slyre lied o n th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n to c o n c lu d e th a t N o u r c o u ld n o t m a k e o u t a c la im o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overN our ’ s pet i t i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew f a c tu a l f in d in g s , lik e a n a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n , f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See B ut tv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng m u st b e a f

f o rd e d su b sta n tial d e f

e re n c e , so lo n g a s th e f

in d in g is s u p p o rte d b ysu f f icie n t, cogentr eas ons . See i d. at434. W e eva l uat e w hetherthe cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as

“ a p p ro p ria telyb a se d o n in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts, c o n tra d icto rye v id e n c e s, a n d in h e re n tly im p ro b a b le te s tim o n y. . . in v ie w o f th e b a c k g ro u n d e v id e n c e o f c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s .” 2 C h e n v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).H is v is a w a s is s u e d o n O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . R . 6 3 3 . 3 4 In th is c a se , a re a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld n o t b e c o m p e lled to m a k e a f a v o ra b le cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, s ee X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 243 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (e x p lain in g th a t an a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s a n yre a so n a b le ad jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary ), b ec au se th ere are i ncons i s t enci es i n the r ecor d. I n hi s aff i davi t( found atR . 616- 22) , N ourdes cr i bed the m a in e v e n t o n w h ich h e b a se d h is c laim s f o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l as o c c u rrin g “ n o t u n til O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 , w h e n [ h e ] w a s 2 1 a n d h a d g ra d u a te d f ro m h ig h s c h o o l.” R . 6 1 7 . Speci fi cal l y , he ave rr ed thats ol di er s , i ncl udi ng an i m por t antgener al , arr i ved i n the m id d le o f

th e n ig h t so m e tim e in O c to b e r to a rre st h is f a th e r f o r a lleg e d lye n g a g in g in re v o lu tio n a rya c tiv iti e s. T h e yb ro k e d o w n th e d o o r to th e f a m ilyc o m p o u n d a n d b e a t h is f a th e r w ith th e ir w e a p o n s w ith o u t sa y in g a w o rd . A s th e e ld e st s o n , h e ste p p e d in to tryto hel p hi s father , and a c oupl e of the s ol der s pus hed hi m aw ay , ki cked hi m , and dr agged hi m har d enough ac r os s a bumpycementfl oort o l eave s car s . N oury el l ed cur s es as the s ol di er s t ook hi s fathert o the gene r al ’ s w ai t i ng L and C rui s er . W hen he he ar d the gene r al y el l t o the s ol di er s t o arr es thi m , he t ook off runni ng fors ever al bl ocks and di d nots t op u n til h e re a c h e d th e h o u se o f h is f a th e r’s f rie n d . H is f

a th e r’s f rie n d e x p lain e d th a t h is fathers uppor t ed a r ebel l i on ( the M ouvementpourl a D emocr aci e etl a J us t i ce a T chad or th e M D J T ). H is f

ri e n d h id h im , s e n t h im to g e t a v is a , a n d h e lp e d h im le a v e th e c o u n tr y . 3 I n hi s s uppl ement al aff

i davi t , N ours t at ed thatthe arr es tof hi s fatheroccurr ed “a ft er[he]5

fi ni s hed . . . hi gh s chool i n 2005. ” R . 312. H ow ever , he t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thatthe s o ld ie rs c a m e to h is f

a m ily’s c o m p o u n d o n o r a b o u t A u g u s t 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 . I tcannotbe s ai d the di ffe r ence i n the dat es i s i ns i gni fi cant . A l though N our tes tifie d a b o u t h is e th n ic A n a k a z a /G o u ra n e b a c k g ro u n d , h is in f lu e n tial p o lit ica l f

a m ily (i ncludi ng t i es t o the ki ng of the A nak aza pe op l e), and his fat her’ s and o ther r el at i ves’ p a st m ili tar yse rv ice , h e b a se d h is c laim p rim a rilyo n th e in c id e n t th a t o c c u rre d a t h is fami l y ’ s compound. Y et , he r eport ed the dat e as O ct oberi n hi s fi r s taff i davi t , di d not s peci fythe dat e i n the s uppl ement al aff i davi t , and t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thatthe eve nt occu rr ed in A ug ust . (H e al so st at ed thathe rem ai ned athis neighbo r’ s hom e from A ug ust t o O ct ob er. ) To exp l ai n the di scr epan cy , N ou r s t at ed thathe w as conf used w hen he fir st a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s a lo n e . R . 2 6 1 . H o w e v e r, h is a f f id a v it w a s n o t p re p a re d u n til A ugus t2006, appr oxi m at el y10 m onths aft erhi s arr i val . R . 236. M or eover , i n a cl i ni cal in ter v iew in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 7 p re c e d in g a m e d ica l ex a m in a tio n to d o c u m e n t h is in ju rie s, it a p p e a rs th a t N o u r s ta te d th a t h e in c u rr e d th e in ju ri e s f ro m th e s o ld ie rs in O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 . R . 4 3 3 . A n o th e r in c o n sis ten c yin th e re c o rd th a t p u t in d o u b t N o u r’s a c c o u n t is h is des cr i pt i on of hi s m other ’ s vi s i t s t o hi s i m pr i s oned fa ther . I n hi s aff i davi t s , N ours t at ed thathi s m othervi s i t ed hi s i m pr i s oned fa theronce a w eek t o br i ng hi m food. R . 315 & 6 2 1 . Ho we v e r , h e t e s t i f i e d th a th i s mo th e rs a w h i s f a th e rtwi c e i n 2 0 0 5 a n d n o o th e rt i me s i nce hi s arr es t . R . 184- 85. A l though N our , w ho s peaks atl eas ts om e Engl i s h, R . 260-6

61, m ade a n ar gum entaboutthe tr ans l at i on, R . 280, he s t at ed atthe s t artof the hea r i ng th a t th e d o c u m e n ts s u p p o rtin g h is c laim w e re a c c u ra te, R . 1 7 6 . N o u r a lso a rg u e s in h is br i ef thathi s s t at ement s aboutthe vi s i t s w as hear s ayevi dence bas ed on t el ephone conver s at i ons underdi ffi cul tci r cumst ance s , Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef 30; how ever , N ourdi d not appr i s e the I J of thi s expl anat i on of the i ncons i s t enci es w hen he t es t i fi ed, R . 238- 39. T h e IJ a n d B IA a lso n o ted th a t N o u r h a d su b m itt e d a f ra u d u len t b irth c e rtific a te to C a n a d ian a u th o rities f

iv e m o n th s a f

ter h e a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s in a n e f f o rt to c irc u m v e n t th e S a f

e T h ird C o u n tryru les . A lth o u g h th a t d o c u m e n t is u n re late d to h is a c c o u n t, th e IJ a n d th e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t its s u b m is s io n u n d e rm in e d N o u r’ s c re d ib ility. A l though the I J al s o di s cus s ed the i s s ue of c orr obor at i on, he l i s t ed the i ndi vi dual inco n sist en cies to a rri v e a t th e n eg ati v e c red ibil ityfin d ing . IJ’s D ec isi o n 1 0 -11 . T h e B IA concl uded thatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d w i thout cons i der i ng the corr obor at i on i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the i ncons i s t enci es pr ovi de ind ep en d en t sup p o rtfo r th e a d v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing , w e d o n o t con side r th e IJ’s c o rro b o ra tio n a n a ly sis (o r th e p a rties ’ a rg u m e n ts re latin g to it). C o n tra ryto th e a rg u m e n ts N ou r advan ces, the incon si st encies i den t i fi ed h ave a b asi s i n the r ecord an d are no tso m i noras t o nots uppor tthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. A l s o, des pi t e N our ’ s cl ai m t o the contr ary , the I J di d notneed t o eval uat e the fa ct s r egar di ng per s ecut i on on the as s um pt i on th a t N o u r w a s a c re d ib le w itn e s s . T he adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, forw hi ch ther e i s s uppor ti n the r ecor d, m eans that7

N o u r c a n n o t m a k e o u t an in d iv id u a lize d c laim o f p a st o r f e a re d f u tu re p e rse c u tio n to s uppor thi s cl ai m s of as y l um and w i thhol di ng. T he l ack of cr edi bl e t es t i m onyand abs ence of otherevi dence al s o barr ed the C A T cl ai m . Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.